0 % karma still able to play ???????

[Melarnos]

Hi everyone,
So, I played a turn-based game, and a player bailed (stopped playing) a few turns before the end, because it was losing...
To my great suprise, I saw that this... thing (won't call that a 'player' or even a 'human being') has 0 reputation.
ZE-RO.
I didn't think it was possible.
So ok, yeah, losing karma can happen to anyone (emergency, technical issues...), although it's less forgivable on the slowest turn-based games.
But reaching ZERO reputation, with absolutely no consequence?
What's the point of karma, then?
As I understand by reading other posts, BGA won't ban these accounts because they want as many players as possible, but seriously, can at least the ones who go down to ZERO have a consequence? Like a temporary ban or something? A consequence clearly indicated in the terms and conditions of the website?
Thoughts?

[Meeplelowda]

Hi everyone,
So, I played a turn-based game, and a player bailed (stopped playing) a few turns before the end, because it was losing...
To my great suprise, I saw that this... thing (won't call that a 'player' or even a 'human being') has 0 reputation.
ZE-RO.
I didn't think it was possible.
So ok, yeah, losing karma can happen to anyone (emergency, technical issues...), although it's less forgivable on the slowest turn-based games.
But reaching ZERO reputation, with absolutely no consequence?
What's the point of karma, then?
As I understand by reading other posts, BGA won't ban these accounts because they want as many players as possible, but seriously, can at least the ones who go down to ZERO have a consequence? Like a temporary ban or something? A consequence clearly indicated in the terms and conditions of the website?
Thoughts?

The consequence is that they get filtered out of games where people set a floor on the karma of people they want to play with. It means it takes longer for the low-karma person to find people willing to play with them. For me, if it is a quick game like Lucky Numbers, I set my filter to 50% karma, or maybe none at all, because the amount of my time being wasted if they quit is small. If it is a long game like Ark Nova or something, I set the strictest karma requirement allowed.

But I would support a temp ban for reaching 0 karma. You don't get there with intermittent internet connection issues. You pretty much have to *try* to get your karma that low, and why would we want anyone like that in the player pool?

[Silene]

But I would support a temp ban for reaching 0 karma. You don't get there with intermittent internet connection issues. You pretty much have to *try* to get your karma that low, and why would we want anyone like that in the player pool?

You can get there by unexpected crises in your life that suddenly stop you from logging into BGA. Can be illness, fire, someone died, war,...

When you have a few fast TB tables going at the time, you're easily on 0% within a week or 2.

But usually in cases like that a bad Rep on a gaming platform is the least of your worries, so I guess it doesn't matter (the 0% - not the life-event of course) and an additional temp-ban won't matter either, so seems like an ok approach.

[Meeplelowda]

But I would support a temp ban for reaching 0 karma. You don't get there with intermittent internet connection issues. You pretty much have to *try* to get your karma that low, and why would we want anyone like that in the player pool?

You can get there by unexpected crises in your life that suddenly stop you from logging into BGA. Can be illness, fire, someone died, war,...

When you have a few fast TB tables going at the time, you're easily on 0% within a week or 2.

But usually in cases like that a bad Rep on a gaming platform is the least of your worries, so I guess it doesn't matter (the 0% - not the life-event of course) and an additional temp-ban won't matter either, so seems like an ok approach.

Fair enough and I went too far saying no one gets to 0% for legitimate reasons, but same as with people wanting their ELO restored because they lost their connection, BGA can't investigate every instance of someone claiming they had a good reason for going to 0%.

[Jellby]

If people are OK with playing with 0-karma players (because they set no minimum karma), why should BGA ban them?

If you don't want to play with 0-karma players, why don't you set a minimum karma in your tables?

[testingmypatience]

Hi everyone,
So, I played a turn-based game, and a player bailed (stopped playing) a few turns before the end, because it was losing...
To my great suprise, I saw that this... thing (won't call that a 'player' or even a 'human being') has 0 reputation.
ZE-RO.
I didn't think it was possible.
So ok, yeah, losing karma can happen to anyone (emergency, technical issues...), although it's less forgivable on the slowest turn-based games.
But reaching ZERO reputation, with absolutely no consequence?
What's the point of karma, then?
As I understand by reading other posts, BGA won't ban these accounts because they want as many players as possible, but seriously, can at least the ones who go down to ZERO have a consequence? Like a temporary ban or something? A consequence clearly indicated in the terms and conditions of the website?
Thoughts?

If a player has a temporary ban, they also have their Karma reset to 0. So if they banned players for having 0 Karma, there would no longer be any temporary bans, only permanent ones.

I agree with Jellby, simply set your personal Preferences to avoid these players.

[Melarnos]

If people are OK with playing with 0-karma players (because they set no minimum karma), why should BGA ban them?

If you don't want to play with 0-karma players, why don't you set a minimum karma in your tables?

That's weirdly phrased: according to you, those people should be allowed to continue playing and ruining other people's games? You're ok with that?

Anyway, to answer your questions : yes, setting a minimum karma is a good thing, but sometimes you join tables that didn't do that... and it's too late.

[Jellby]

That's weirdly phrased: according to you, those people should be allowed to continue playing and ruining other people's games? You're ok with that?

With them ruining my tables? Sometimes I don't care, sometimes I do, and I set a minimum karma in my tables.

With them ruining other people's games? Yes, that's the only way those "other people" learn to use the karma restrictions

[Ceaseless]

Hi everyone,
So, I played a turn-based game, and a player bailed (stopped playing) a few turns before the end, because it was losing...
To my great suprise, I saw that this... thing (won't call that a 'player' or even a 'human being') has 0 reputation.
ZE-RO.
I didn't think it was possible.
So ok, yeah, losing karma can happen to anyone (emergency, technical issues...), although it's less forgivable on the slowest turn-based games.
But reaching ZERO reputation, with absolutely no consequence?
What's the point of karma, then?
As I understand by reading other posts, BGA won't ban these accounts because they want as many players as possible, but seriously, can at least the ones who go down to ZERO have a consequence? Like a temporary ban or something? A consequence clearly indicated in the terms and conditions of the website?
Thoughts?

If a player has a temporary ban, they also have their Karma reset to 0. So if they banned players for having 0 Karma, there would no longer be any temporary bans, only permanent ones.

I agree with Jellby, simply set your personal Preferences to avoid these players.

I fail to see how the antecedent leads to the conclusion here. How does resetting karma to 0 for temporary bans make already having 0 karma transform a temporary ban into a permanent one?

[Melarnos]

If a player has a temporary ban, they also have their Karma reset to 0. So if they banned players for having 0 Karma, there would no longer be any temporary bans, only permanent ones.

I didn't know that, that's a good point. However there is a solution : once a player gets to 0 rep, he/she gets a temporary ban. At the end of the ban, he/she gets an 'another chance' status that let them out of the ban. With this status, the player has some games (let's say 10 for example) to go back to a correct reputation. After these determined number of games, if they still have a bad rep, they lose their 'another chance' status, thus going back to the temporary ban. And so on. It could be easily automatized.
Actually IMO what I just suggested is a good idea that could improve the well being of the community. Because I'm not ok with this 'just don't play with them' spirit. People should get the opportunity to adjust their behaviour so BGA could remain a fun and safe place.